Here's a good library for testing the template code.
http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/index.html
The author David Abrahams sits on the C++ standards committee, or used to.
From a Python development standpoint his library is the absolute best way to
create Python extensions. It is also a heavily template-laden body of code
that breaks a number of compilers.
Mark
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 14:20:39 -0700, "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:

It still is not C++98 compliant with the templates, it's just a step in that
direction.
Jan Knepper wrote in message <3BAE385F.A1AD58A0 smartsoft.cc>...

Here's a good library for testing the template code.
http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/index.html
The author David Abrahams sits on the C++ standards committee, or used to.
From a Python development standpoint his library is the absolute best way

to create Python extensions. It is also a heavily template-laden body of
code that breaks a number of compilers.

No, I've decided to diverge from that, there doesn't seem a point to it
anymore.

Pity, I switched back to SC with the drop in, the IDE and the resource
editor work better for me somehow. Even after the patch of the DM++ version
using SC components (which worked well on 98SE, but less so on W2000Prof),
it still required coaching. Can I lift DM++ components into a SC IDDE, as I
do it.
Reagrds, Chris